makemygc
07-06 03:29 PM
There are many members who think IV and other members are fighting for re-reversal of VB or increase in visa number for 2007....
why dont they understand that we are fighting to avoid rejection, we are not asking them to re-revise bulletin, all we want is just accept the application without rejecting them, so that we can save ourselves from loosing money and time. dont make fun of IV and other members who's putting their efforts in it, no matter what the result is. if you dont want to participate please stop visiting this forum.
Paisa you too man.
I don't mean to disrespect you but I guess you are going too far with your words. We are with IV much before you born..ok so do not dare teach us what we should be doing, with your 49 posts.
Now back to your comments. You seem to be lost in some dreamy world. What do you mean by just accept the application, so that you can save yourself from loosing money. Do you worry about your GC/EAD or saving your money. From your posts it look like you are more interested in getting your money back than the eligibility to file for EAD.
I'm sure IV does not agree with you and that's not the IV goal. Focus is on to make USCIS accept what they promise and that is accepting the applications files on July for AOS.
What you are trying to do is twist your own agenda of getting your money back by making it as an IV goal. It's not a bad thing to save money or asking the money back from USCIS, which you anyway going to get when they reject your application and send your check back. As far as attorney's fees are concerned, lot of attorney's are going to refile without any charge or for some additional meagre fees.
Now the decision is yours, whether you want to get your money or you want the eligibility to file for EAD/GC/AP.
why dont they understand that we are fighting to avoid rejection, we are not asking them to re-revise bulletin, all we want is just accept the application without rejecting them, so that we can save ourselves from loosing money and time. dont make fun of IV and other members who's putting their efforts in it, no matter what the result is. if you dont want to participate please stop visiting this forum.
Paisa you too man.
I don't mean to disrespect you but I guess you are going too far with your words. We are with IV much before you born..ok so do not dare teach us what we should be doing, with your 49 posts.
Now back to your comments. You seem to be lost in some dreamy world. What do you mean by just accept the application, so that you can save yourself from loosing money. Do you worry about your GC/EAD or saving your money. From your posts it look like you are more interested in getting your money back than the eligibility to file for EAD.
I'm sure IV does not agree with you and that's not the IV goal. Focus is on to make USCIS accept what they promise and that is accepting the applications files on July for AOS.
What you are trying to do is twist your own agenda of getting your money back by making it as an IV goal. It's not a bad thing to save money or asking the money back from USCIS, which you anyway going to get when they reject your application and send your check back. As far as attorney's fees are concerned, lot of attorney's are going to refile without any charge or for some additional meagre fees.
Now the decision is yours, whether you want to get your money or you want the eligibility to file for EAD/GC/AP.
wallpaper Vector Clip Art Picture of an
diptam
08-11 04:14 PM
I've made some date changes to the NSC letter - rest are all absolutely same. It's good to know that this letter does NOT need to be signed by Employer. Lets wake up friends !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From,
ABC XYZ
Address:
To,
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Dear Mr. Ombudsman:
Re: I-140 processing delays at NSC for Apr - June 2007 non-concurrent petitioners
I submitted an I-140 petition for an employment based green card to NSC during the May 07. I have been waiting for more than a year now and still there have been no updates on my case. While the processing times on USCIS website shows that NSC is processing cases filed around Mar 22nd 2007, we have been consistently observing (on multiple tracker websites online and from friends who recently received their Approvals) that NSC has been processing & approving cases filed post August-September 2007 and some as recent as this year. While people like us are still waiting, people who applied recently are getting approval notices. This fact can be confirmed by Ombudsman's office requesting NSC to provide with the receipt dates for all the I-140 cases approved in the last few months. It's only fair that people who filed earlier are given preference following the FIFO policy of USCIS.
This delay in processing and ignoring our cases at the expense of recently filed cases is causing us undue hardship. Some of members who are in similar situation who contacted NSC have received responses that our cases will not be picked for processing until our priority dates are current. But there are several hundred cases like mine, who have an earlier approved I-140 and have filed a new I-140 petition (based on a new PERM labor) after we joined a new employer and were intending to port our old priority date which is current per the latest visa bulletin. At the same time, NSC has been approving I-140 petitions and whose PD's are not current.
Also some of the members, who contacted NSC, have received responses like "We are waiting for FBI name check to clear before we can process I-140 petition". It is clearly known that there is no need for FBI name check for processing I-140 petitions. Also, now that there is a new memo stating that if FBI name check has been pending over 180 days, then I-485 can be conditionally approved without having to wait for clearance from FBI. In spite of this memo, NSC has been consistently ignoring our petitions.
Some of members who have contacted USCIS Ombudsman regarding this delay have received responses from the Ombudsman's office stating that they are aware of the delays in processing I-140 petitions. But till date, we have not seen any action on part of USCIS to address this issue in-spite of many members raising this issue during Ombudsman's conference calls and sending letters to your office.
Lack of I-140 processing for non-concurrent filers has prevented us from receiving some of the interim benefits (EAD/AP valid for 2 years, possibility of using AC21 in these uncertain economic conditions) that come with an I-140 approval. This has resulted in us applying for EAD/AP's multiple times and paying for expenses associated with it.
I seek your assistance in investigating in this matter with NSC and impress upon the center to complete processing I-140 petitions for the non-concurrently filed cases during Apr-June 2007. I also urge you to request USCIS to re-instate the premium processing service for all categories of I-140 petitions with no pre-conditions to qualify.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. I would appreciate your response and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
ABC XYZ
Phone : -
Email : -
Address: -
Your employer does not need to sign the letter. You can sign the letter. On section 12 of the form 7001 mention " please see the attached letter" and then include the letter to be mailed to Ombudsman's office.
From,
ABC XYZ
Address:
To,
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Dear Mr. Ombudsman:
Re: I-140 processing delays at NSC for Apr - June 2007 non-concurrent petitioners
I submitted an I-140 petition for an employment based green card to NSC during the May 07. I have been waiting for more than a year now and still there have been no updates on my case. While the processing times on USCIS website shows that NSC is processing cases filed around Mar 22nd 2007, we have been consistently observing (on multiple tracker websites online and from friends who recently received their Approvals) that NSC has been processing & approving cases filed post August-September 2007 and some as recent as this year. While people like us are still waiting, people who applied recently are getting approval notices. This fact can be confirmed by Ombudsman's office requesting NSC to provide with the receipt dates for all the I-140 cases approved in the last few months. It's only fair that people who filed earlier are given preference following the FIFO policy of USCIS.
This delay in processing and ignoring our cases at the expense of recently filed cases is causing us undue hardship. Some of members who are in similar situation who contacted NSC have received responses that our cases will not be picked for processing until our priority dates are current. But there are several hundred cases like mine, who have an earlier approved I-140 and have filed a new I-140 petition (based on a new PERM labor) after we joined a new employer and were intending to port our old priority date which is current per the latest visa bulletin. At the same time, NSC has been approving I-140 petitions and whose PD's are not current.
Also some of the members, who contacted NSC, have received responses like "We are waiting for FBI name check to clear before we can process I-140 petition". It is clearly known that there is no need for FBI name check for processing I-140 petitions. Also, now that there is a new memo stating that if FBI name check has been pending over 180 days, then I-485 can be conditionally approved without having to wait for clearance from FBI. In spite of this memo, NSC has been consistently ignoring our petitions.
Some of members who have contacted USCIS Ombudsman regarding this delay have received responses from the Ombudsman's office stating that they are aware of the delays in processing I-140 petitions. But till date, we have not seen any action on part of USCIS to address this issue in-spite of many members raising this issue during Ombudsman's conference calls and sending letters to your office.
Lack of I-140 processing for non-concurrent filers has prevented us from receiving some of the interim benefits (EAD/AP valid for 2 years, possibility of using AC21 in these uncertain economic conditions) that come with an I-140 approval. This has resulted in us applying for EAD/AP's multiple times and paying for expenses associated with it.
I seek your assistance in investigating in this matter with NSC and impress upon the center to complete processing I-140 petitions for the non-concurrently filed cases during Apr-June 2007. I also urge you to request USCIS to re-instate the premium processing service for all categories of I-140 petitions with no pre-conditions to qualify.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. I would appreciate your response and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
ABC XYZ
Phone : -
Email : -
Address: -
Your employer does not need to sign the letter. You can sign the letter. On section 12 of the form 7001 mention " please see the attached letter" and then include the letter to be mailed to Ombudsman's office.
godbless
04-27 02:37 PM
I have my sister in law from India on H4. She got married after her husband got his 797B approved and so she does not have her own 797C. The DMV wants her own 797C approval notice to give her a temporary drivers license. How does she get that? Can she file some petition with USCIS to get it?
2011 Balloons Happy Birthday free
cnag
01-07 04:07 PM
I closed on dec 27. Underwriter asked me about green card. I just sent EAD copy front and back as well as AP and explained to him that EAD is like learners driving permit that is issued when your GC is under process. :D
more...
TomPlate
07-06 05:13 PM
One thing everybody need to understand here is we should not show anger even though we are angry. Please mind your words in the forum. Too bad from all people writing words which are not good.
This website is searchable from search engines like google.com and it is really bad to see any anger and bad words in this website.
Administrator do you have filter mechanism.
This website is searchable from search engines like google.com and it is really bad to see any anger and bad words in this website.
Administrator do you have filter mechanism.
Macaca
09-14 03:13 PM
Employers Oppose Hiring Provisions in Immigration Bill (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=75395&postcount=37) By Krissah Williams (williamsk@washpost.com) | Washington Post Staff Writer, June 3, 2007
Top Talent Could Lose Fast Track to U.S. Under Bill, Foreign Luminaries Would No Longer Skip Immigration Line (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=72488&postcount=1169) By Anthony Faiola (faiolaa@washpost.com) and Robin Shulman (shulmanr@washpost.com) | Washington Post Staff Writers, May 26, 2007
A Self-Inflicted Wound (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=52210&postcount=308) The U.S. is blocking the best and brightest immigrants Editorial (ombudsman@washpost.com, national@washpost.com, marmerg@washpost.com) March 12, 2007
Top Talent Could Lose Fast Track to U.S. Under Bill, Foreign Luminaries Would No Longer Skip Immigration Line (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=72488&postcount=1169) By Anthony Faiola (faiolaa@washpost.com) and Robin Shulman (shulmanr@washpost.com) | Washington Post Staff Writers, May 26, 2007
A Self-Inflicted Wound (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=52210&postcount=308) The U.S. is blocking the best and brightest immigrants Editorial (ombudsman@washpost.com, national@washpost.com, marmerg@washpost.com) March 12, 2007
more...
everonh1
07-22 12:45 PM
Found another discussion on interim EADs here:-
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=128691
If you can get interim EADs,then local USCIS office will be backlogged with numerous applicants after November 07.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=128691
If you can get interim EADs,then local USCIS office will be backlogged with numerous applicants after November 07.
2010 See below to download clip art
axp817
12-01 12:05 PM
Approval, impossible. PD - June 6 2006, EB2-I.
RFE, I hope not.
What is everyone's opinion on travelling if there is an RFE or Denial? Does that immediately invalidate the AP?
And what if someone was overseas when the denial occured? Can they not come back in at all?
I have to travel outside the country for two weeks, leaving on Dec 17.
What I hate the most about this situation is that I have to worry like my life was at stake, for some guy's misinterpretation about my documentation, despite following the process to a Tee.
RFE, I hope not.
What is everyone's opinion on travelling if there is an RFE or Denial? Does that immediately invalidate the AP?
And what if someone was overseas when the denial occured? Can they not come back in at all?
I have to travel outside the country for two weeks, leaving on Dec 17.
What I hate the most about this situation is that I have to worry like my life was at stake, for some guy's misinterpretation about my documentation, despite following the process to a Tee.
more...
jonty_11
07-06 01:05 PM
He is a excellent lawyer it seems , may be i'll hire him ...
What is his name , is he/she a AILA member ?
Wahtever this may be..lets hope this is also not a rumor like the VB July Fiasco turned out not to be a rumor.
What is his name , is he/she a AILA member ?
Wahtever this may be..lets hope this is also not a rumor like the VB July Fiasco turned out not to be a rumor.
hair Celebration Balloons Clipart
h1techSlave
05-01 02:35 PM
Cool
The gray dots come when you get either approval/disapproval from somebody who has:
less than 30 posts.
overall negative reputationgray dots have no affect on your reputation. This is to prevent new or disreputes from irresponsibly affecting others' reputations.
The gray dots come when you get either approval/disapproval from somebody who has:
less than 30 posts.
overall negative reputationgray dots have no affect on your reputation. This is to prevent new or disreputes from irresponsibly affecting others' reputations.
more...
malaGCPahije
10-17 10:07 AM
Everyone who contributed to this have done a great job. Hopefully USCIS takes a note of this and rectifies their process in the future. I will send the letters soon. Thanks to each one of you for the efforts.
hot Balloon Cartoon clip art
raj7480
08-01 02:21 PM
When you have these news articles ready...one of the easiest way to circulate them is using a news wire agency.
I have used http://www.prweb.com/ before for my company news releases. It is free and if you want a broader reach pay $80. It is very effective.
It is a good idea to release it when something related to immigration is going on in senate or house. During this time, all major news network pickup articles from these wires based on keywords like "immigration, border issue etc"
So make sure you add appropriate keywords when you do the release.
I have used http://www.prweb.com/ before for my company news releases. It is free and if you want a broader reach pay $80. It is very effective.
It is a good idea to release it when something related to immigration is going on in senate or house. During this time, all major news network pickup articles from these wires based on keywords like "immigration, border issue etc"
So make sure you add appropriate keywords when you do the release.
more...
house alloons 01
hariswaminathan
07-14 01:32 PM
sent $10.00 instead of $5 to make up for someone that doesn't.:)
Used Bank Bill Pay Conf : 119124506
Used Bank Bill Pay Conf : 119124506
tattoo Christian Clip Art: Mr.
ragz4u
03-09 08:56 AM
He wants to make sure that atleast 8 members till 1.00 so that amendments can be passed/rejected
Senator Grassley wants an amendment (#6291) that DHS should have more transparency when signing contracts with international firms....nothing to do with us again :(
Senator Sessions wants some amendment for Illegal immigrant detention!
I hope they bring in an amendment for Legal immigrants eventually !
Senator Grassley wants an amendment (#6291) that DHS should have more transparency when signing contracts with international firms....nothing to do with us again :(
Senator Sessions wants some amendment for Illegal immigrant detention!
I hope they bring in an amendment for Legal immigrants eventually !
more...
pictures alloon fat yellow
gc_maine2
04-04 10:27 AM
:confused::confused:
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
Very good info, thanks for the posting. BUt its still not clear whether the spouse who is on EAD and does not work at all or for that matter 6 months in a given year, will she/he be eligible for setting up a S -corp??
Thanks
sree
I am excerpting Internal Revenue Code Section 1361 below:
Internal Revenue Code
� 1361 S corporation defined.
(a) S corporation defined.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this title, the term �S corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a small business corporation for which an election under section 1362(a) is in effect for such year.
(2) C corporation.
For purposes of this title, the term �C corporation� means, with respect to any taxable year, a corporation which is not an S corporation for such year.
(b) Small business corporation.
(1) In general.
For purposes of this subchapter, the term �small business corporation� means a domestic corporation which is not an ineligible corporation and which does not�
(A) have more than 100 shareholders,
(B) have as a shareholder a person (other than an estate, a trust described in subsection (c)(2) , or an organization described in subsection (c)(6) ) who is not an individual,
(C) have a nonresident alien as a shareholder, and
(D) have more than 1 class of stock.
(2) Ineligible corporation defined.
For purposes of paragraph (1) , the term �ineligible corporation� means any corporation which is�
(A) a financial institution which uses the reserve method of accounting for bad debts described in section 585 ,
(B) an insurance company subject to tax under subchapter L,
(C) a corporation to which an election under section 936 applies, or
(D) a DISC or former DISC.
There is no mention here that the "resident" must be a permanent resident.
Here is an excerpt of the Federal Regulation that defines who is a "resident alien" for taxation purposes:
Reg �1.871-2. Determining residence of alien individuals.
Caution: The Treasury has not yet amended Reg � 1.871-2 to reflect changes made by P.L. 108-357
(a) General. The term �nonresident alien individual� means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term �fiduciary� shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of �1.871-4.
(b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien make his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Here is the relevant Federal Regulation on Proof of Residence for determining status for tax purposes:
Reg �1.871-4. Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien, by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted.
(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien, at least six months before the date he so presents himself, has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(2) Other aliens. In the case of other aliens, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof�
(i) That the alien has filed a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States under the naturalization laws; or
(ii) That the alien has filed Form 1078 or its equivalent; or
(iii) Of acts and statements of the alien showing a definite intention to acquire residence in the United States or showing that his stay in the United States has been of such an extended nature as to constitute him a resident.
(d) Certificate. If, in the application of paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) or (2)(iii) of this section, the internal revenue officer or employee who examines the alien is in doubt as to the facts, such officer or employee may, to assist him in determining the facts, require a certificate or certificates setting forth the facts relied upon by the alien seeking to overcome the presumption. Each such certificate, which shall contain, or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, shall be executed by some credible person or persons, other than the alien and members of his family, who have known the alien at least six months before the date of execution of the certificate or certificates.
(c) Application and effective dates. Unless the context indicates otherwise, ��1.871-2 through 1.871-5 apply to determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985. To determine the residence of aliens for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984, see section 7701(b) and ��301.7701(b)-1 through 301.7701(b)-9 of this chapter. However, for purposes of determining whether an individual is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1)(A), the rules of ��1.871-2 and 1.871-5 shall continue to apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984. For purposes of determining whether an individual is a resident of the United States for estate and gift tax purposes, see �20.0-1(b)(1) and (2) and � 25.2501-1(b) of this chapter, respectively.
In summary, I submit to you that if you work in the US for more than 6 months out of a given year, you are a resident alien, and therefore are eligible to set up an S-Corp.
Since I am still learning about this, any input/feedback/logical arguments with relevant proof/citations would be appreciated!
Very good info, thanks for the posting. BUt its still not clear whether the spouse who is on EAD and does not work at all or for that matter 6 months in a given year, will she/he be eligible for setting up a S -corp??
Thanks
sree
dresses alloons.gif
Googler
04-30 03:28 PM
Taking a break at work so decided to listen in. Aytes said something astonishing a little bit ago -- the FIFO was a great idea but under present circumstances it is not...something about very early PD applications may take longer...
This is an outrageous statement and he deserves to be berated and grilled about it. I hope IV core is paying attention and will bring this to Lofgren's attention.
I hope a full transcript will be made available. There should be a point by point response to all their BS.
This is an outrageous statement and he deserves to be berated and grilled about it. I hope IV core is paying attention and will bring this to Lofgren's attention.
I hope a full transcript will be made available. There should be a point by point response to all their BS.
more...
makeup Royalty-free clipart picture
chi_shark
02-23 02:18 PM
It means USCIS has pre-adjudicated your I-485 if it was filed before october 2008.
i thought it meant that you had to wait 4 months after your priority date is current to have any expectation of adjudication... no?
i thought it meant that you had to wait 4 months after your priority date is current to have any expectation of adjudication... no?
girlfriend Back to Clip Art Index.
ssnd03
04-02 03:18 PM
You don't need to be harsh on your comments. You can go ahead and file a case with USCIS. That's what I've been saying here all the time.
Calling me a numbskull I think is inappropriate. You can disagree with me and I can disagree with you which is the essence of this forum but not to abuse each other.
I didn't call you numbskull and I will never call anyone numbskull, so I guess you owe me an apology.
No you or D.E.D. do not deserve an apology for being numbskulls as you both have an agenda of fear mongering so that folks do not raise voices for legitimate reasons.
Calling me a numbskull I think is inappropriate. You can disagree with me and I can disagree with you which is the essence of this forum but not to abuse each other.
I didn't call you numbskull and I will never call anyone numbskull, so I guess you owe me an apology.
No you or D.E.D. do not deserve an apology for being numbskulls as you both have an agenda of fear mongering so that folks do not raise voices for legitimate reasons.
hairstyles clip art | Size: 12 Mb.
k2006
06-01 04:46 PM
I have a question here. If this bill becomes law in its current form what happens to those I-140 filed on May 15, 2007 itself. Can they saty in old system or they have to go to the new system ? I looked into AILA interpretation but its not clear about those are filed on May 15, 2007 itself.
Karthikthiru
09-12 12:04 PM
I will also start to work on this
Karthik
Karthik
coopheal
12-16 03:22 PM
Maybe you want to start a thread and collect all those who are stuck in 2001 and earlier dates in EB3 I and 2003 and earlier for EB2I on IV.
Lets see how many we get. They should also update the IV tracker with their dates. We can then use that data to ask help clear the backlog and petition to advance dates in a systematic order. This will work if you can get many people who are stuck despite their dates being current for several months/years. What do you think?
I'snt tracker broken (Sorting by PD ) for some time now.
Lets see how many we get. They should also update the IV tracker with their dates. We can then use that data to ask help clear the backlog and petition to advance dates in a systematic order. This will work if you can get many people who are stuck despite their dates being current for several months/years. What do you think?
I'snt tracker broken (Sorting by PD ) for some time now.
No comments:
Post a Comment